It does seem that being in school made this experiment distinctly different from just living in a tent. In a sense, tuition was rent. It paid for showers, electricity, and a living room with air conditioning (the library). It also provided a supportive community. School and even society at large is more inclined to help a poor student than an adult trying to cut rent.
I make this observation not to diminish the experiment's value. I am just putting it in context to arrange its utility in my mind.
(edit: I can't imagine why this is flagged. It is def life- hacking if not tech hacking.)
Flagging seems to be one of the big vulnerabilities of HN.
Maybe flaggers should be required to state the reason for flagging, and this reason should be exposed.
Flagging means "no one should even see this on HN", and random people shouldn't get arrogant or cavalier about swinging around that power.
100%. It's a lot easier when you live next to a Google campus. And it sorts all the menial matters that make a huge difference, like access to washing machines.
About the flagging, you seem to have been here for a while, any hint? I get the word usage can comes across as disrespectful now that people mention it, but didn't think a link would get flagged for that.
I could see conservatives disliking that it questions capitalism's viability post AI. I could see liberals thinking you are making light of folks experiencing homelessness.
I think those are absurd, but with a low vote count, your post may only need a few absurd people to flag you.
Naturally, there could be other reasons things get flagged, but I never see them because they disappear too fast.
You could always ask @dang to weigh in. He might see something which violates the guidelines.
This was a choice (essentially to save money) and the author had multiple fallback plans. Real homelessness is born out of desperation and lack of alternatives. Tragedies of mental health issues, abuse, severe financial distress, no savings, debt, warrants. No nice shower at the gym, no locker to keep a laptop and two suits. The constant fear of not just the police but also of getting robbed by another homeless, likely after something to sell for drugs. That's very different from anytime being able to crash on somebody's sofa to save on rent so you can earlier "afford to build companies".
We can even see it in one of the later paragraphs where potential spots in the bay area are evaluated. The local homeless should not be close. Oh, they shouldn't? That gives you an idea of the conditions actual homeless folks need to live under.
I've actually gone out of my way to meet homeless in the Bay. You'd be surprised how much of a continuum homelessness is. Most are definitely living hell on earth, but many I personally met have both fallbacks and money. Could be they're too attached to their family's image of them. Or that they weirdly enough have a better life now - I met a guy who led a small community and made quite some money from crime, he could have afforded to live anywhere, but this would mean taking a menial job like he had in the past, and he didn't want that.
Of course, the disclaimer is that many homeless care a lot about their self-image and will create stories to justify their current situation so it's hard to judge. But the point still stands that, even in hell of earth for the homeless, you'll find it's a continuum. And the world is much broader than SF - I've met people at every point of the spectrum, the most extreme being a multi-millionaire who lived Swiss forests for fun!
To summarize, there is no "actual homelessness", it's not a boolean but a spectrum, and I fail to see how gatekeeping the use of the most adequate word in this situation helps anyone.
If the problem is that it using the word comes across as disrespectful to people who mainly know homelessness through the prism of the Bay Area, maybe another avenue could be to add a link at the end of the article to promote a relevant NGO, which I'm definitely open to adding if people suggest a good one.
> If something isn't important to know, there's no answer to the question of why people don't know it. Not knowing random facts is the default. But if you're going to write about things that are important to know, you have to ask why your readers don't already know them. Is it because they're smart but inexperienced, or because they're obtuse?
So you can claim to have been homeless, or have experience having been homeless, but then you will be judged as having that experience. That isn't how you presented the story, but as a successful experiment where living in a dorm for $450 a month was also a good option. The redeeming lesson from such an experiment is that "being homeless isn't that bad" because "you weren't really homeless" not because "others also could have somewhere to live". The two has completely different implications.
You aren't being "gatekept" out of bad faith, but because it is nicer to believe that you are mistaken than the alternative. Because if you claim to actually have been homeless the story reads more like you put yourself above the rules, didn't consider your friends and don't understand the difference.
A millionaire in the Swiss forest is not homeless. Choosing to live in a tent is not homelessness. To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives. As soon as it's a choice, to see romantic sunrises or fall asleep to ocean waves or whatever, that is, if calles "homeless", to me, a misuse of the term. It's a nice life, I've done it too and loved it, but I'd not start to call it "homelessness" and place myself into the same category as the poor souls sleeping under a bridge.
Of course it's a spectrum. Some folks have been forced out of their home and are living out of a car while finding a new place. That's homelessness. For some of those, it's temporary. For others, it's a spiral into misery, next is to lose the job, having a mental health issue, soon the car breaks down, and eventually they are sleeping under a bridge. Insubstantial of whether it's in SF, Berlin, Sao Paulo or Tokyo. Similarities to a concious choice are only superficial. Once it's a choice, it's outside the spectrum and is doing the fight against homelessness a disservice.
A pork steak is a piece of meat taken from a pig. Once it's made of beans or some mushroom it may still be tasty (and I love good veggie food), but it's not a pork steak.
Similarly, the term "homeless" also has a certain meaning, and using it for something else muddies communication waters. And at worst, it makes the fight against actual homelessness harder: Next time some tax dollar is planned to be used for relief, somebody will point to those cases and say "well some homeless enjoy the sunrise and love the outdoors and have two suits in locker, and ain't none of my tax dollars go to that!!"
If you want to call that "gatekeeping", then sure. What's the purpose of your comment then? Gatekeeping me and telling me I should not call out the misuse of the term?
Wikipedia says homelessness is "the condition of lacking stable, safe, and functional housing". It doesn't say anything about it having to be a choice. I know people who say they're homeless by choice. Would you say that's an oxymoron?
That’s my takeaway and others on the difference here. Homelessness driven by choices then turn into necessity to live. I don’t think responding to the sentiment with technical definitions from Wikipedia is the right discourse either (as done in other comments not yours). You can see the problem with this story without having to cite your comment to try to bring some strength to it.
Edit: the word “lack” really is the key word. This implies no choice, right?
So yes, considering it not to be actual homelessness if it's a choice is perfectly reasonable. You can't wikipedia-lawyer your way to a functional understanding of natural language.
To me, that's a blatant misnomer. Elon Musk also calls himself "homeless". (By choice, quite obviously.) There is not much to discuss once the term is assigned that meaning.
There's no single cause or experience for being homeless. There's no "real homelessness" either.
You might be interested to read "20-25% of all 'homeless' actually have housing" by Kevin Dahlgren.
https://truthonthestreets.substack.com/p/20-25-of-all-homele...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kevin-dahlgren-former-gresham-emp...
also this seems a really entitled take to say, "there is no homelessness" when there clearly is.
If you know how to survive in a forest, you're a good candidate for a homeless or a migrant. Such decision point might be closer than you think.
I truly hope you will never be in such a situation and then meeting somebody telling you that you are a refugee because of a choice you made.
The main thing I did different was using a hammock tent (10min setup, 10min teardown each day). So I stayed in very public places (right off major foot traffic routes) and just went to bed early and got up at sunrise.
Also, I told everyone. No authority cared that i was doing it. In fact, i was organizing weekly events for government employees (some quite high level), and they all thought it was hilarious and were supportive.
Here's my learnings: https://github.com/patcon/urban-camping
EDIT: Ah, and these were my notes from living in rented shipping containers with a friend: https://github.com/patcon/container-city/wiki/Notes
I think it's important for every young adult who becomes a well-rounded adult to have experienced a short term of deprivation so they have a frame-of-reference what others in less fortunate situations experience. <my-two-centidollars>The problem today is that there are too many mean, spoiled individuals with way too much power lacking theory of mind, a sense of community, and basic human compassion.</my-two-centidollars>
"I'm currently tenting in the backyard of a friend's place."
"Tenting in a park is not something I'm comfortable advising right now :)"
Any solutions other than a friend's backyard?
For the rest, I'm with you it might be hard to replicate beyond this n = 1 sample, but I'm convinced this experiment's ROI is actually much more positive than suggested in the post.
Not only did I get better grades that semester from being forced to spend more time in the library, but I learned a lot living at people's places afterwards, and, most importantly, the feeling of freedom from materials matters allowed me to make bolder bets that paid back multiple times over.
You can even go further: even if my grades had gone down, I still would have been more employable for many types of companies, starting with early stage startups.
I noticed in myself that when I stay in minimal places (camping/jungle hut/tent), I tend to be more connected to the real world and less addicted. More productivity, clearer thought.
Learned a lot living at people's places: you could plan a month of no accomodation and couch surf, don't think that's such a stretch. More fundamentally, the tent piece was just a "social opener" to learn more about others. Many other things can be this social opener.
Material freedom: I buy that the experiment showed you that and that's awesome, but I also think some solid therapy around one's understanding of material reality could play a similar role.
These are the real dangers that a roof and walls offer you protection from. If you happen to find a benign niche where you don't face these threats, it's likely because there is an invisible layer of defense being provided to you by the societal structures around you.
The “Community Support” section was my favorite. I would love to hear you elaborate on experiences and lessons you learned while staying with others.
Trebaol was not forced into homelessness, but he was not play-acting or apeing a lifestyle for kicks. He was in a situation where he judged squatting four and a half months illegally in the jungle was worth saving a mere $2,000.
If you prefer to describe your past lifestyle as bandit camping instead of homelessness, by all means do so. But don't insist the rest of the world conform to your arbitrary redefinition of a term from its everyday meaning because it doesn't always fit your preconceptions.
Are you really helping the unhoused by insisting that someone is only truly homeless if they are schizophrenic, strung out on fentanyl, or otherwise totally incapable of being a productive member of society?
I'm sure homeless people have more pressing thoughts than what words nerds on the internet use to describe outdoor living
*Sure, not a 'Hey, this looks fun' choice, more a conscious understanding of a tradeoff where homelessness is not choosing the alternative life.
Edit: I've taken a crack at it. If there's a better way, we can change it again.
Also, by your invented criteria for language monitoring, many homeless people in many cities would themselves no longer be considered homeless.
Quite a few of them could somewhere, under some circumstances, find a place to stay even though it cost them just a bit too much to like, just like the guy who created this clever and interesting post.
The author wisely talks about safety considerations, but there's an it's-expensive-to-be-poor risk I'd like to emphasize:
One injury or illness caused by the frugality could wipe out that $2K savings, many times over, in immediate costs, and might never fully heal.
I think back to all the penny-pinching I did (less impressive than the author's), and much of it was necessary under the circumstances, but a very poor value tradeoff otherwise.
I’ve been to the ER in Ecuador, Mali, Angola, Australia, Canada. Even as a tourist it was so cheap I didn’t bother using any travel insurance ( less than $50, including prescriptions)
Can’t comment on all the other countries you listed, although I can add that urgent care in Germany was pretty reasonably priced.
Edit: added! thanks for the feedback again
All Hong Kong residents are eligible (anyone with an HKID and permission to remain >= 180 days).
Risk is complicated, anything could happen. Not just doom and gloom. Individuals circumstances and appetite for risk versus reward varies.
In that case, the appetite for risk versus reward is only appetite for reward.
If risks pointed out, at least that's closer to an informed choice they're making, and maybe they'll do the same risky thing but now be more careful about mitigating risk as they do.
(Source: Person who's bet it all at least a few times, and about to do so again, but finding ways to avoid stupid decisions and mitigate risks along the way.)
This is much like the couch surfing experience: staying with people for a few days and sharing their space, which often ends in these deep, late-night conversations. It's an incredible experience.
There are a few platforms for that, I recommend Couchers.org. It's free & open source (and I'm one of the core maintainers).
This was in between two stints living and working in a mobile RV hacker lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT1gPmQQkxI
I'm in SF now and we'd probably be best friends.
Ok I was expecting a lot more. So it is one $450 USD per month? That doesn't very low. I guess HK Uni have decent discounts. But
>Living in Hong Kong without a dorm room would push rent up to at least $700 a month
Unless you only rent a bed with share washrooms and kitchen I can assure you it is not $700 but much closer to $1K if not higher depending on your living standard requirements.
If only this experience could reach media outlet. Hong Kong's rental or property pricing is just crazy expensive relative to what they offer.
Another reason is that Hong Kong has a lot more affordable housing in the outskirts, like in the village of Tai Po Tsai that borders this university.
Stealth camping should be done in low profile tents (1.2 meters high). You should pitch tent at dark, and leave before sunrise.
You're safe! No one found me, and I took it away a decade ago.
More people were openly & brazenly wild camping in HK during covid than this.
There also gets a point where some of these things become "penny wise and pound foolish". I'm reminded of the people who spend 20 minutes driving across town to save $0.20 a gallon on gas. Which even in an empty 15 gallon tank, is a savings of only $3.00. Net cost benefit analysis says they would be better off working an a fast food restaurant or something for a higher trade-off of money per hours.
And getting the driving experience is not cheap if you don't know people who have a car you can borrow!
I honestly think everyone would be much happier and less lonely if sleep-overs didn't stop being a thing as we reach adult age.
To solve the housing issues, all we have to do is build basic soviet-era apartment buildings everywhere and all will be good. The fact that we don't do this in many countries with crippling real estate situations must be a symptom of much larger underlying systemic issues. The future will hold a great many things but also some unavoidable and painful refactoring of leadership.
I think the challenge is these sub 500 studios. It requires a functioning economy and state. E.g. land, utilities, zoning, infra, public services, law enforcement, medical, schools; all these things are needed to support housing. So maybe what is missing is a society, with housing just being the symptom, the manifestation, the telltale sign that there is not enough civilisation to support the people currently residing in some of these problematic states.
In 2023, CA population reduced by 268052 people, that is only 0.6% the the 40 mil population though. If 1% leaves every year, I believe that will compound into an 8% drop in a 10 year period. In 20 years, that will be 17%. Maybe that will help aleviate the burden a bit.
1. Did you consider camping in one of Hong Kong’s official free campsites instead? I don’t remember seeing any rules that would prevent long-term camping. So, besides the less convenient location and perhaps raised eyebrows of their staff (if they regularly saw you at the campsite registration desk), it seems like a safer option?
2. I assume you were a taught student, not a research student, right? (If you were a research student, you could have slept in your assigned office, I guess.)
1. That would have been a great option had there been one close to the university! Proximity was a top criteria because commute is expensive money-wise and time-wise. Also, weirdly enough I think I was much safer in this illegal spot than in a regular camping where traffic makes robberies more likely.
2. I like how you think because I happen to have befriended a research student who did just that! I didn't envy him one bit thought because he had no windows while my tent view was magnificent. And then summer came and I would have given anything to have his AC!
The convenience of a place with electricity, running water, a table and chair, you are legally allowed to sleep there, etc. Seems easily worth 450 Dollars a month. In the end he says he saved 2k, but that is not a relevant amount of money to save over months if you become a software developer in America.
I've stayed in many inconvenient places and the immediate benefit is often that it forces you to go out of your way to find good places to work from, to get food, entertainment, etc.
Someone has an actual cave to rent out?
Here's some famous advice from Hong Kong's richest man:
--
A daily breakfast of vermicelli, an egg and a cup of milk.
For lunch just have a simple set lunch, a snack and a fruit.
For dinner go to your kitchen and cook your own meals that consist of two vegetables dishes and a glass of milk before bedtime.
For one month the food cost is probably $500-$600. When you are young, the body will not have too many problems for a few years with this way of living.
--
Note he's talking HKD, and HKD 550 translates into about USD 70.
There's "This-This Rice" places (Rice + 2 other ingredients like meat / vegetables) that usually have big portions and feel somewhat healthy.
I read empathy with those in crisis. In Seattle, WA, USA there are many encampments applying what you're learned by doing, and your risk mitigation thoughts unpack this. You have the clear advantage of fallback support, which of course makes this an experiment as opposed to anything more, as you say in the title.
Re: being disappointed in many of the comments here: If you're looking for a culture-war point to make, you can find it. Please don't always go there - consider that the author may not be aimed in the direction you perceive. I recommend listening to David Foster Wallace's "This is Water" speech on YouTube or elsewhere - way better than Infinite Jest.
I kinda understand doing this if at home, and you have no other options. But this comes off as reckless and somewhat naive. To save 2K over a few months you risked serious injury, violated the terms of your visa and ultimately felt a need to humble brag about it.
Not everything needs to be shared.
